Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 5, Decoding the Enmity

This is not to be construed as a complaint, but this refutation of the lies of Charles Weisman is taking much longer than I initially expected. However it must be done in detail if we are going to sufficiently demonstrate exactly why he is wrong, and precisely why his arguments were often dishonest. So while we thought we could finish Weisman’s discussion of the enmity of Genesis 3:15 in our last presentation, we did not. Hopefully with this presentation we can conclude that, and then finally move on to chapter 3 of his book, which is titled The Serpent.

We have already discussed much of Weisman’s argument concerning “the enmity”, and how he had used, or rather, abused, three passages of Scripture to somehow prove that the enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman was ended at the Crucifixion. In this endeavor, Weisman cited two passages from Paul, which are Colossians 2:15 and Hebrews 2:14-15, and one passage from John, found at 1 John 3:8.

First, it can be established that Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians was written only a short time before his epistle to the Colossians, and that both were written during the two-year period while he was in captivity in Rome. This is explained in a paper at Christogenea titled Ordering and chronology of the epistles of Paul, and it is beyond the scope of our purpose to present it again here.

So Weisman had cited Colossians chapter 2 where Paul said that Christ had “spoiled principalities and powers… triumphing over them in it” as evidence that the enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman was ended. But Paul had said in Ephesians chapter 6, which was written only a short time before, that we – meaning the collective body of Christians – “wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians chapter 6 having been written about 30 years after the Crucifixion, Paul’s words at Colossians chapter 2 cannot possibly mean what Weisman had asserted that they mean. Furthermore, Weisman cannot possibly have written his remarks concerning Colossians chapter 2 while being ignorant of what Paul had said in Ephesians chapter 6, and therefore I would assert that he must have purposely lied.

Then, where Weisman cited 1 John 3:8, which reads “8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil”, he made no explicit remarks in reference to the passage but evidently only sought to use it to support his contention that the enmity is ended on the cross, apparently implying that the enmity was ended at that time because Christ was manifested to “destroy the works of the devil.”

However reading 1 John chapter 3, it is apparent that the works of the devil would not be destroyed immediately, or John would not have continued in that chapter to warn his readers about the children of the devil, and the antichrists who had already been born into the world. Doing that, John also explained that the children of God cannot sin, while he acknowledged that all men sin and had told them in chapter 2 that if they sin that they have a propitiation in Christ.

All of this is rectified with the understanding that first, while all men sin, the children of God have been forgiven for their sins – they cannot sin if their seed is in them, meaning that they are truly sons and daughters of Adam, because in the end sin will not be inputed to them. Paul explained that same thing in very different terms in Romans chapter 5. Then secondly, there is a distinction in John between the mere act of sinning, and the authorship or origination of sin and not only Weisman, but most mainstream commentators and translations miss the distinction entirely.

Later, in his second epistle, John spoke about antichrists once again, and said “9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” This situation exists to this day, but Christians for at least several centuries have completely ignored John’s warning. The situation can only be explained by the fact that Weisman is wrong, and the enmity did not end with the Crucifixion, as those who denied Christ as John wrote those epistles are certainly the seed of the serpent, the dragon which continues to make war with the remnant of the seed of the woman.

Note also that the verse of 1 John which Weisman had quoted says “the devil sinned at the beginning”, yet Weisman has not yet explained how. Rather, he conveniently gets rid of the devil so he does not have to explain it, where he made the false conclusion that: “Christ destroyed the serpent of Genesis 3:15”, a conclusion which is found to be false by even a casual reading of the Revelation. We have already presented those arguments earlier in this series of presentations, and where Weisman discusses the serpent, we are sure to discuss it again.

Finally, we explained that in citing Hebrews 2:14, Weisman also took that passage out of context, where the full context of the surrounding passages proves that his interpretation cannot be true. If the serpent is eliminated, and if the works of the devil are already destroyed, then we should have no more sin. But men still sin, and men are still tempted by sin, because the culmination of these things has not yet transpired, as after Christ ascended to heaven, as we read in Revelation chapter 12, the dragon was angry not with Christ, but with the Woman, so he went to make war not in heaven with Christ, but with the remnant of her seed, her seed which remained on the earth. This alone also proves that Weisman is completely wrong in his attempt to limit the “seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15 to Christ Himself.

As we also already said, having the Gospel of Christ which was not brought to them until after Christ was caught up into heaven, we see that the dragon, or Satan, certainly does still have power in the world, and Weisman is exposed as a liar. The children who are the partakers of flesh and blood, in Hebrews chapter 2, are the seed of the woman with whom the dragon makes war in Revelation chapter 12, and therefore the enmity is not yet ended.

As that same Paul of Tarsus had attested in that same epistle, in Hebrews chapter 12, being tempted, sinning and receiving chastisement, the brethren of Christ are corrected, where Paul also explained that by this we know the children of God, where he says “8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” Saying that, Paul refers to the phenomenon of the wheat and the tares, since only the wheat receive correction in their sufferings. This is found in Amos chapter 3, where Yahweh was addressing the children of Israel and said: “2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” It is also found in Jeremiah, on a couple of occasions, where it is also addressing the children of Israel and it says in chapter 46: “11 For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.”

If one is not a son, the only other alternative is that one is a bastard, describing someone of mixed race. This also must lead one to questions concerning the origins of the races. Later in the same chapter, referring to Esau, who took wives of bastards, Paul wrote “15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; 16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” On 1 Corinthians chapter 10, Paul used that same word translated as fornication to refer to race-mixing. Esau, the fornicator, despised his birthright, mixed his race, and for that reason he had also sold it to Jacob. Race-mixing was the original agenda of the fallen angels, it is what men were punished for in Genesis chapter 6, it was what Adam and Eve must have been punished for in Genesis chapter 3, and it is still with us today, being promoted by the descendants of the same fallen angels as a part of the continuing enmity which the serpent has against the seed of the woman.

But Weisman, confident that his three verses, or really, two-and-a-half verses which were taken out of context, would establish his assertion, then made the following conclusion:

“Christ destroyed the serpent of Genesis 3:15, and set Adamic man free of the bondage of sin and death imposed upon them by the works (acts of deception) of the serpent. If Christ was destined to destroy this serpent and his works, it is logical that there would be enmity between Him and the serpent, and no one else.”

Now if this is the case, how does the serpent, or dragon, go on to make war with the remnant of the seed of the woman, after the Christ child is caught up to heaven? How do we read in Revelation chapter 20 that “… an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years” and then, after the saints “lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” we read: “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.” How does this happen, if the power of Satan and the devil himself were completely destroyed at the Crucifixion, or even at the Resurrection of Christ?

Then we read in the Revelation, “9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.” What is the Camp of the Saints, if it is not the remnant of the Seed of the Woman with whom the dragon would make war, in Revelation chapter 12? How is this not an expression of the enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman? How is Weisman not a deceiver, purposely seeking to hide these things from men?

But like building a house of cards, Weisman keeps piling wrong conclusions atop of false premises which we have already disproved. Now he makes another false statement: “The enmity was not with the lineage or seed of Adam because the serpent had already subdued them by getting them to leave God’s order and enter its order. Further, Adamic man never had the power or ability to free himself from that ‘bondage’ (Heb. 2:15). The only one who could undo the bondage which the serpent caused or brought upon Adam and his descendants was Christ.”

There is no doubt that for various reasons Christ is the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”, meaning that Yahweh knew that Adam would fall, and that He would later have to come as a man and die in order to reconcile Himself to the children of Israel. But because there are multiple levels of promises which God had made first to the Adamic race and then to the children of Israel exclusively, there are multiple dimensions to the reasons for the necessity of a Messiah.

The truth does not end at the claim that Adam or Eve were under the order of the serpent, something Weisman could never establish, so he did not even try. But upon having been alienated from God, Adam and Eve and most of their descendants had indeed been subjected to the “powers of darkness”, and have an assurance of deliverance in Christ. Many of our brethren in this time are still under the powers of darkness, because they do not keep the commandments of Christ so they have not separated themselves from the evil which his in the world.

However the sin they commit is not merely some thought crime. Esau, led astray, had committed miscegenation, as Paul called him a fornicator, which is a race-mixer in that context. Weisman wrote a book on Esau, but he failed to adequately explain why it was that all of Esau’s progeny were rejected in perpetuity. The only explanation is that they were bastards, and not sons. This race-mixing agenda of the devil is one important manifestation of the ongoing enmity which the seed of the serpent has against the seed of the woman.

The truth is that Adam and Eve were given one law, at Genesis 2:17: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” So they “touched” the tree, and they faced death. They and their descendants, who were made to be immortal in the image and likeness of God. This is explained in chapter 2 of the Wisdom of Solomon: “23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. 24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world…”

Here Weisman implies that Adam’s being under the “order” of the serpent was the bondage of which Paul spoke in Hebrews 2:15, which he cited in parentheses. But reading Hebrews 2:15, we see that Weisman lies again. Let us read verses 14 and 15: “14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”

While the devil had the power over death, that power is executed by tempting men to sin, the devil being the author of sin, so men were in bondage to death, which is the penalty for sin in the law. Death is never the penalty for mere thoughts in the law, but only a penalty for tangible acts which are described in the law. Neither was Adam in bondage to the serpent, but to death itself, as a penalty for his sin which was stated in the only law which he was given. So Paul wrote in Romans chapter 8: “2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Weisman is pulling a typical Jewish bait-and-switch tactic, so that he could misrepresent the law and the punishment for sin in a manner which deceives men into thinking that something other than a sexual transgression had occurred in Genesis chapter 3. It is Weisman who is perpetrating the thought crime.

Being Christians, we know that through Christ death has no power over us, and the devil has no power over us if we do not sin.

Weisman then claims that we do not consider why enmity would exist, and he says: “The reason for the enmity is the conflicting objectives and results that the serpent and Christ had in relation to Adamic man. The serpent induced Eve, and thereby Adam, to sin. Sin had dominion over them and their descendants, but Christ removed that dominion (Rom. 6:14). The serpent caused Adam to come under its worldly order or kingdom, but Christ delivered us from this evil world and brought us into His kingdom (Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13). The serpent was responsible for ‘death’ coming upon Adam and his kind, but Christ restored life to them (John 10:28; 1 Cor. 15:21, 55-57). The serpent caused the curse of the law upon us, but Christ redeemed us from this curse (Gal. 3:13).”

Actually, sin did not have dominion over Adam or his descendants. Only death did. And for that reason, Paul explained in Romans that while sin was not imputed where there was no law, that “14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression” (Romans 5:14). However later, the children of Israel were bound by the law of Sinai, so they were under a different circumstance. So while Christ redeemed them from the curses of the law, the other descendants of Adam were bound by death, but not by sin or the law.

But now it must be explained, that we have considered why the enmity would exist. But Weisman did not consider or attempt to explain why the serpent would target Eve, ostensibly using her as a way to undermine Adam, in the first place. I would venture to state that if our Scriptures were complete, the reason for the serpent’s having targeted Eve, the reason why Adam was told not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, would be quite clear.

From the book, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, on page 247, there is a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 and 6, which is part of the Enoch literature preserved in the scrolls. There it explains that the fallen angels had taken: “1 [... two hundred] 2 donkeys, two hundred asses, two hund[red ... rams of the] 3 flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [... beast of the] 4 field from every animal, from every [bird ...] 5 [...] for miscegenation [...]”.

So when Adam is created, and commanded not to touch of that tree, Yahweh declares that “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” Paul of Tarsus used similar language, evidently taking this as an example, where he wrote to the Corinthians about marriage that “2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Then, using the seduction of Eve in Genesis chapter 3 as a model for what happens when a husband or wife is tempted by another, he said just a few verses later: “5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.” And there we have a further proof in Paul of what had really happened in Genesis chapter 3.

So in Genesis chapter 2, after God had determined that Adam must have a wife, we read “19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” This too is a parable, since Yahweh did not expect Adam to find a wife among the beasts, where He had already said “I will make him an help meet for him.” Rather, Yahweh wanted Adam to understand that he could not find a suitable wife among the beasts. Then after Yahweh creates Eve, we see the declaration by Adam that “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” With this it should be evident, that the Genesis 2 creation account is a parable representing the antithesis to the sin of the fallen angels.

The enmity existed because once the angels sinned, Yahweh created the Adamic race in order to supplant their old and corrupted order. So when Adam was created we see a Divine Council, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”, and then Yahweh Himself created man, “27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Then once he was created, Adam was commissioned to “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”, and that word translated as to have dominion literally means to trample down or trample upon. Weisman is correct that the Adamic race then fell under the order of the serpent, but that was due to the race-mixing events of Genesis chapters 3 and 6, so Weisman does not tell the whole story. Genesis 3:15 is indeed a prophecy outlining what was the plan of God all along, that He Himself, along with the Adamic race which He created to be His brethren, would ultimately trample upon the serpent and destroy all of the works of the fallen angels.

Here, where he admits that the serpent is a person and has his own order which is opposed to God’s order, Weisman has admitted the truth of the foundation of Two-Seedline while at the same time denying Two-Seedline! If the serpent were a mere snake having been created by God, how could it have its own order? If it is a man, where did it come from, if not the fallen angels of Revelation chapter 12?

But Weisman reduces all of this to a mere bad idea, or wrong thinking, on the part of Adam and Eve. Then Weisman said “The serpent caused the curse of the law upon us, but Christ redeemed us from this curse (Gal. 3:13).” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, but the part where Weisman said that “the serpent caused the curse of the law upon us” is not true. The law has curses, but the law itself is not a curse. The same Paul had said in Galatians that “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ”, so the law is good, as Paul also said in his epistle to the Romans, “I consent unto the law that it is good”, and in 1 Timothy, “8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully”. Rather, the law contained both blessings and curses, as we read for example in Deuteronomy chapters 28 and 29, and the curses of the law came upon the children of Israel when they sinned, as it is also described in those chapters. Those sins which cause curses are all tangible acts, and not thought crimes.

But just before Paul had said in Galatians that “13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree”, Paul described the rituals of the law as a curse, where he said: “10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” So this must be the curse to which Paul was referring in verse 13, having written the Galatians in order to persuade them not to follow after the Judaizers who would attempt to hold them to the rituals of the law, which is translated “works of the law” in the King James Version. Once again, Weisman takes a passage out of context and twists it to support his twisted position. In any event, the law itself was certainly not a curse – only the penalties for disobedience to the law were considered curses.

In the next passage, while he does not describe it explicitly, Weisman admits the truth of the foundation for Two-Seedline, while at the same time denying Two-Seedline! This is found where he says: “To better understand this enmity, one must put himself in the serpent’s place. Suppose you were told that someone was coming to destroy all that you accomplished — to destroy your order in the world. In fact, he would destroy you, and would then establish his order which you were against. Would you not have enmity toward that person?”

This could not be true if the serpent were a snake, and if the serpent were just a person, where did it come from? But if the serpent was of the race of the fallen angels, as we see in Revelation chapter 12, then we see how the serpent had established its own order, in the rebellion which was the corruption of the Creation of God. If the serpent had its own order, then Two-Seedline is true, and Weisman admits it is true while at the same time he denies Two-Seedline!

While Adam was, as we learn in Luke, the son of God, Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, as we learn in John. So Yahweh knew that Adam would fail from the beginning, and that this war between His people and the seed of the serpent would carry on throughout history. Just because Adam would only have victory in Christ does not remove Adam and his descendants from the equation of the enmity, and throughout history they have been targets of the serpent’s wrath. Supporting what we have interpreted from Revelation chapter 12, that the dragon’s making war with the remnant of the woman’s seed is an ongoing manifestation of the enmity of Genesis chapter 3, is Daniel chapter 7. There is a description of a dragon with seven heads and ten horns, and an eleventh of which Daniel says “21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.”

Weisman understood that the serpent represented a world order, and that he was not just a simple snake. Weisman understood that the serpent was against the order of God. Indirectly, Weisman admits that the creation of Adam and Eve was contrary to the order of the serpent. But then he throws all of his knowledge away with a conclusion which we have already refuted, and he says: “This was the relationship between the serpent and Christ, the two seeds of Genesis 3:15. The point of contention is between them, not between two races of people.” Three primary and explicit witnesses stand against that claim by Charles Weisman, which are Revelation chapter 12, chapter 20, and Daniel chapter 7. There are many others, some of which we have already cited. We will cite others when we discuss Weisman’s chapter on The Serpent.

But if the enmity were not between two races of people, why would the serpent target Adam and Eve in the first place, and why was Adam told ahead of time what punishment he would suffer if he succumbed by “touching” the tree?

Next, in part, Weisman concludes this section by reasserting his most glaring error here, where he once again states in relation to the enmity of Genesis 3:15: “Many of the Satanic Seedline position believe that this enmity still exists. They say, ‘We are now nearing the climax of the enmity spoken of in Genesis 3.15.’” Then he responds: “No, that is not true. That ‘climax’ was reached 2,000 years ago.” But if that were so, why would the dragon go off to make war with the remnant of the Woman’s seed, and gather all of the nations from the four corners of the world against the Camp of the Saints, after Christ had already ruled for at least a thousand years? The climax was not 2,000 years ago. Rather, the climax is described in Revelation chapter 19 where Christ returns to destroy His enemies. But Weisman acts as if he does not even believe the Revelation, which makes him a Jew and not a Christian.

If it were so, that the enmity is over, why would Daniel state that the little horn would make “… war with the saints,” and prevail against them, “22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” Just before the ascension of Christ, the apostles asked Him, as it is recorded in Acts chapter 1, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” To that He only answered “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.”

So if we still have war, and if the “saints of the most high” do not yet possess the Kingdom of God on earth, then Charles Weisman is a purposeful liar, because he could not have been ignorant of these verses. We have stated that before, and our answer stands, because Weisman can insist all he wants but he has no proof of his premise. The Words of Christ Himself, as well as His apostles and prophets, refute Weisman at every turn.

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." - 2 Chronicles 7:14

Donate with Bitcoin:

Donate with Monero XMR:

or see our Contact page for a mailing address and other ways to support Christogenea.

Today's Christogenea Internet Radio ScheduleStream 1: Non-White Races in Scripture and Prophecy Stream 2: Christianity in the Old Testament and Christian Identity Liturgy in the Book of Odes Stream 3: Ecclesiastes parts 5 to 8 Stream 4: Compromise is not the Path to Righteousness, reviews of Emahiser essays: Diverse Seed Defiles Families, Be Kind to Your Kind, All the Kindreds of the Earth, Who Are the Hunters, Covenant versus Replacement Theology, with Clifton Emahiser; Christian Foundations, and What is a Church, with Dr. Michael Hill.